FORESTRY TRIES TO SPIN RESULTS OF CSIRO EMISSIONS STUDY
More Smoke and Mirrors from an Out-of-Touch Agency

Kim Booth MP
Greens Forestry Spokesperson
Thursday 25 August 2011

The Tasmanian Greens today said that a CSIRO study comparing smoke emissions from wood-heaters with forestry burn-offs did nothing to justify Forestry Tasmania’s outdated and unsustainable management practices.

The study, commissioned by Forestry Tasmania, found that the majority of smoke pollution in specific parts of the Huon Valley during 2009 and 2010 was caused by wood-heater emissions.

Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that these results aren’t surprising, particularly in the more densely populated areas such as Geeveston and Grove where the study was conducted.

“This is not a case of one type of smoke pollution being better than another. All smoke emissions are an unwanted nuisance for the community, particularly for those with pre-existing respiratory problems such as asthma.”

“The commissioning and release of this study by Forestry Tasmania is another obvious attempt to justify their so-called regeneration burns. That’s despite the Environment Protection Authority identifying numerous breaches of guideline safety levels for particle emissions caused by burn-offs.”

“We need to be working as a community to reduce all smoke emissions and improve air quality. This means that we must work to educate people on the importance of installing heaters that burn efficiently, and comply with Australian standards.”

“Forestry can’t play down the negative impact of its burn-offs. The Greens receive many complaints from people suffering from respiratory problems, such as asthma, who have no option in some cases but to pack up and leave home during the forest burns season.”

“Proper systems need to be put in place, or its time these burns were stopped once and for all.”

That report appears to contradict the findings of the EPA that 80% of the particulate pollution emitted by Tasmania is generated by the forest industry.

The smoke that I photographed from fires this year in the Lower Beulah area did not go up into the Troposhpere, it had plenty of energy but temperature inversion stopped the smoke going very high.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 25/08/11 at 07:05 AM

Hey Clive, this proves what Roger and myself have been arguing about all along. Care to comment?

Posted by Michael on 25/08/11 at 08:32 AM

Looks like FT has removed the report from their site. It was on there last night.

Posted by Clive Stott on 25/08/11 at 09:16 AM

Dr Mick Meyer and the CSIRO should study the domestic heater v burn offs again.
Of course domestic fires release their smoke nearer the ground on cool still evenings but the damage to the world is infinitesimal compared the tonnage of pollutants and CO2 blasted high into the atmosphere. The comment that burn-offs produce fewer particles than domestic fires is crazy. Damaging particles may have been elevated to high levels but they always return to earth eventually. Except for the CO2 that stays up, contributing to global warming I stated that for each tonne of wood burnt two tonnes of CO2 would be produced. This statement was corrected .#41. Burning 1 tonne of carbon releases approx: 2 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Surely there are two issues here. One is about smoke dispersal, and it may be true that the fierecest burns do send smoke into the troposphere—but the smouldering goes on at ground level for very much longer. But whether the smoke goes up high or stays low, the carbon released from forestry burns is more than the total for the rest of Tasmania, amounting to 70 million tons of carbon dioxide in the past 12 years (as calculated by Frank Nicklason using FT’s own figures). So the latest report, CSIRO notwithstanding, is disingenuous—or at least the use being made of it certainly is.

Posted by John Biggs on 25/08/11 at 10:10 AM

3 consecutive days of not being able to see more than a couple of hundred metres in front of you, covering an area from Devonport to the other side of Deloraine, to me would probably more than cover the total of Tasmania’s woodheaters.

Woodheaters use dry wood and generally burn cleanly, else you are fined.

FT burns are green and smoke out vast regions, yet they are exempt from the fines everybody else faces.

I’d like to see how they came up with their rubbery figures.

Posted by Russell on 25/08/11 at 12:25 PM

As a well practiced and Technical Wildfire, Fuel Reduction and Native Forest Regeneration Manager I am more than pleased that the anti smoke, anti forestry whimps have been shown the facts.
Burn earlier in the end of summer season when weather conditions are suitable to disperse smoke higher into the atmosphere.
Another point is not to delay the burning of forest slash fuels too long after harvesting. Ensure that during snig track and fire break construction that slash is not heaped with piles of dirt which can result in stinking smokey burning to continue for days post burn. Well supervised harvesting followed up by progressive FPC restoration should be able to deal with these issues.
Burns left too long after harvesting 2 years plus may need stirring up to elevate the rotting finer fuels to dry sufficiently to achieve a satisfactory burn. An excavator with log grabs can effectively deal with this however it does incur additional cost for the regeneration treatment as well as placing more pressure for FT to achieve more burns in a smaller window of opportunity when conditions are favorable.
Another point to consider is the benefit of introducing of wood burning electricity generation units to consume the bulk of forest slash leaving up to 5 t / ha sufficient to produce an ash bed with a rapid hot fire earlier in the season producing less smoke.
FT management needs to ensure that it does not remain hindered by the bureaucracy of the EPA and the anti foresty protest movement in achieving their back log of controlled regen burns.
These burns need to achieved soon, not leaving the forest estate and rural settlements open to the chance of the spread of wildfire.
This study has confirmed results that would have already been known to professional foresters.

Posted by Robin Halton on 25/08/11 at 12:55 PM

The findings of this CSIRO report have been totally misrepresented by FT to suit its own self vested agenda:

The report (which can be downloaded at the above link) clearly states that “Prescribed burns emit 99% of total anthropogenic PM emissions” and shows that estimated PM emissions from prescribed burning in the Huon Valley for 2010 were 9,229,953 kg PM compared with estimated annual wood-fuelled heater emissions of 121,168 kg PM.

The fact remains that forestry contributes more carbon emissions than the rest of the State combined and the toxic smoke pollution is dispersed across Tasmania rather than just the Geeveston and Grove localities.

It should also be noted that forestry severely undermined the Tasmanian Air Quality Strategy by failing to disclose the full extent of particles emissions from planned burning when a subsequent EPA investigation found that forestry understated its emissions by a factor of between 330 and 460 times.

Refer to the Revised Contribution of PM10 Emissions from Forest Industry Burns and Domestic Wood Heating found here:

Russell…The figures are retty predictable really…FT,Gunns and the gov’t seem to all be able to manipulate anything and come up smelling like roses when the occasion requires. I have lived near the Tamar, down in the valley and I was smoked out regularly from FT/Gunns burns. When I rang the EPA, Dr Roscoe Taylor told me himself, that I should stay indoors and keep my windows closed. The time was around Easter, 3 to 4 years ago when Targa was happening. The weather was beautiful and I had to stay a prisoner in my own home because I couldn’t breathe. Incidently the smoke still infiltrated all of my closed windows and doors. I have since moved so it will be interesting to see how I am affected when the sorry saga starts all over again.

Posted by suspicious mind on 25/08/11 at 04:04 PM

In a career of herculean spin, this is one of FT’s whoppers

It was the Air Section of DPIPWE which did the 2008 reassessment of FT’s extraordinary figures and discovered they were achieved by the exclusion of the particulate emissions from “regeneration burns”.

When recalculated by DPIPWE accordingly, FT’s contribution to smoke particulates went from a saintly 260 tonnes p.a, to an estimated 86-120,000 tonnes p.a., rather more than the 3,300 tonnes estimated to come from wood heaters.

One calculation you can rely on is the estimate of FT’s credibility - sitting firmly on zero over time.

Who would be part of a government spewing out such noxious smoke?

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 25/08/11 at 09:31 PM

It was interesting to hear what Dr. Faye Johnstone had to say on TV when this report was released. Dr Johnstone is a Research Fellow at the Menzies Research Institute with areas of expertise in cardiovascular and respiratory research.
She certainly didn’t give the report the thumbs up.

Posted by Clive Stott on 25/08/11 at 11:21 PM

#7 Robin Halton, wow, what a fine sounding position you held within the Logging industry, would you like to offer further detail in your defence to the likes of the comment and link provided by PB #8?

I must admit it gives me shivers and quivers of pleasure to know that you have retired from your pyro-intensive occupation with Forestry Tasmania.

Am I to understand that you were unable to pass on your flaming flambe skills to any apprentice-ship individuals?
Furthermore, for those persons whom are of the mind that they can expand upon and administer their determined purpose of exceeding the mighty forces of nature, (though this be generally locked down and held in tightly restrained confinement, until finally bursting out unleashed to rage its storming tempers upon the the fickle and failing tormentors so rife among our human species, then those persons must often find themselves dwelling in a rather enchanting cosmic sphere of serendipity.

Posted by William Boeder on 26/08/11 at 02:59 PM

7 # Robin Halton. Just how well a practiced and Technical Wildfire, Fuel Reduction and Native Forest Reduction Regeneration Manager were you? One of your defence mechanisms for the work you aided an abetted is to accuse people who were effected as whimps. It has been a defence of crimes against humanity to belittle the people who the crimes were committed against, such as you calling them whimps. You go on to say that if the debris is left on the ground for 2 years plus may need stirring up to elevate the rotting finer fuels to dry sufficiently to achieve a satisfactory burn. I thought you said it had to be burnt or it would create an uncontrollable wild fire. Carting this debris to a thermal power station over the distances required would cost more than the energy it would produce and I am doubtful that leaving half a kilo per square metre of trash would produce a rapid hot fire to produce an ash bed that would sterilise the ground.

Posted by max on 26/08/11 at 08:41 PM

The CSIRO report investigated one really important issue - what is the source of the noxious smoke emissions that people breathe and that damages our health, and that of our children.

The answer is that 77% comes from wood heaters and 11% from forestry burns (see Fig 8 of the report, reproduced at woodsmoke.3sc.net/news )

There’s no doubt that forestry burns are bad for the environment and should be stopped whenever possible. In fact, a 50-scientist report by UN Environment Program and World Meteorological Association, released 14 June 2011, recommended phasing out agricultural burns to help prevent catastrophic climate change.

Although it is important to phase out both forestry burns and wood heaters, with the CSIRO report showing that 77% of the toxic pollution that damages our lungs is from domestic wood heaters, it would be better to put the bulk of our effort into first getting rid of domestic wood heaters.

Posted by Dr Dorothy L Robinson on 26/08/11 at 10:40 PM

#13 max, Unintentionally you may have the wrong message, I am referring to a modern nimby society imagining that they are actually suffering from the ill effects of smoke from forestry burns and woodheaters!
It is the drier flashy fine fuels that need to remain elevated to create burning intensity that may need extra disturbance to freshen up ideal burning fuels if left rotting on the ground for more than 2 years. In recent times, Forest Disticts closer to the Hobart have been ordered by government to stop burning during periods of cultural events,(10 days on the Island) resulting in delays to planned burning programs.
Not every summer will offer good drying conditions to complete a burning program that also has to constantly deal with bureaucracy (EPA) which fails to understands the reality of delays to burning.
A wildfire could catch the State off guard if FT are not free to make their own decisons on carrying out their annual burning program to completion.
Many complain at the slightest hint of smoke in the open. With the aid of Green idealogy supporting anti forestry and anti wood heater campaigns based on “life threatening scientific findings” is to set out to challenge the Australian way of life.
Burning is still ia common practice in the Australian bush and wood heaters are in widespread use in the cooler Southern states.
#14 Dr Dorothy L Robinson. You say it is important to phase out forestry burns and wood heaters ect!
Statistically which in order of severity how would you rate those with existing medical conditions: Obesity, diabetes, cardiac, depression, disability or respiratory conditions, which is the worst!.
I dont know what influence that you can exert on government for shutting down forestry and deny people a choice for wood heating in their homes!
We cannot be expected to tolerate living in a cocooned society based on Green idealogy and scare campaigns coming from the medical profession either. It seems that the medical profession is being closely linked to the legal profession fabricating evidence to interfere with peoples traditional way of living including their employment opportunities in the forestry sector!
People with respiratory complaints would be well aware of how to manage their ailments. It is usually widely broadcast on radio, TV, newspaper and internet when and where broadcast burning is to take place.

Posted by Robin Halton on 27/08/11 at 05:01 PM

#15 Robin: You know what? I have never read, seen, or heard broadcast burn reports being broadcast.
Are all the other types of forest industry burns broadcast,on tv etc, i mean?

“People with respiratory complaints would be well aware of how to manage their ailments.”
I am one of the tens of thousand of people in Tasmania that fit this category. Would you like to explain what you mean by this statement please Dr Halton?

#14 Dorothy you mean well but you really must acquaint yourself with Tasmanian air quality a bit better. It is totally different to Armidale.
Of course the report centered on the worst air quality readings in Tas, this was probably the brief by Forestry Tas. If you drove 14 km to the next monitoring station, or any of the other monitoring stations the results would have been totally different.

We need to get rid of the big smoke, ie forestry smoke. Check out http://www.cleanairtas.com to find out who makes the most smoke.
Look at the photos and you will see their smoke doesn’t always go up into the heavens like they would try and have us believe; it stops at lung level. Any lower and it could slide under a snakes belly.

There is no need for a knee-jerk reaction to get rid of wood heaters. People can’t afford it and people would be left in the cold and this is bad for these at-risk people.
Wood heater smoke can be halved instantly by using Smart Burns and you get 15% more heat according to the Smart Burn website and http://www.smartburn.com.au/wood-fire-smoke/Armidale+Case+Study
Dorothy this comes from your area. Perhaps down the Huon the council could hand out these devices? Or maybe FT should seeing they have identified this little pocket of smoke. I reckon FT should start giving back to the community after smoking us out for what is it, 50 years+?

Lets not get too excited about the CSIRO report just yet. Down here in Tas I have learnt to take things with a grain of salt if they appear in lights as FT News.
I would like to hear what our EPA have to say.

For a start, they did not inform anyone that these tests were taking place so people did not limit their woodfire heater emissions during the winter months. However, Forestry knowing these tests were taking place could simply wait for winds to be in the right direction before lighting up their burns in the Spring and Autumn, which is their regular burning time. The smoke and particles would then be blown away from the testing devices and the pollution would descend elsewhere.

In the North of the State, I have frequently been in smoke so thick, that it has been impossible to see Quamby Mountain from just one kilometre away. There were ocassions where Forestry blamed the smoke on fires on the mainland, but they were subsequently caught out when it was proved that the smaoke was actually coming from the back of the Mole Creek Karst where extensive logging has decimated the area.

Far from going into the troposphere and remaining there, as soon as it has cooled and is away from the rising air current from the burn itself, it then descends again to ground level. The secret when trying to fix results is to get close to the burn where the air current is rapidly rising and particles cannot be detected. Twenty kilometres away and the story is very different.

There is an old saying which is far more apposite than the results of this test, and that is ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics’!

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 28/08/11 at 03:02 AM

“Although it is important to phase out both forestry burns and wood heaters, ... the CSIRO report ... 77% of the toxic pollution that damages our lungs is from domestic wood heaters, it would be better to put the bulk of our effort into first getting rid of domestic wood heaters.” @ 14 - there is already a ‘phasing-out’ campaign stimulated by everyone who would benefit from the death of the domestic wood fire industry, so let’s now turn to the industrial wood burning issue. When can we expect a start on that?

“77% of the toxic pollution that damages our lungs is from domestic wood heaters” - this statement is so exceptional that it is begging for a barrage of conflict from scientific reports of air quality, pollutants, toxicity and management.

Posted by John Wade on 28/08/11 at 09:49 AM

15 # Robin Halton. First you brand people with health problems that are aggravated by smoke as whimps and now all the people who are concerned about smoke as a health issue you brand as a nimby society. Wood smoke is more dangerous to health than cigarette smoke and there is a world wide campaign to stop cigarette smoking, is this a nimby campaign. Then in answer to a doctor you ask, ( Obesity, diabetes, cardiac, depression, disability or respiratory conditions, which is the worst!.) All are effected by wood smoke, what is the worst? if you are lying in bed dying from the aggravated effects of smoke your complaint is the worst.
You have some strange idea that you have the right to inflict smoke on all and sundry no matter what the effects are.

Posted by max on 28/08/11 at 11:12 AM

An important research project compared death rates in Christchurch, NZ with air pollution (76% of which comes from wood heaters). Compared to the cleanest areas of the city, the smokiest areas had:
68% more respiratory deaths
22% more in circulatory deaths
16% more deaths overall

Robin Halton – surely a 68% increase in respiratory deaths and a 22% increase in strokes/heart disease is important? For years, tobacco companies tried to increase profits by misrepresenting the facts. I believe such tactics are unethical.

Woodsmoke contains the same and very similar chemicals to tobacco smoke, and is associated with the same health problems including heart and lung diseases, middle ear infections in kids, lung, mouth and throat cancers. Woodsmoke is worse than tobacco smoke – tumour initiation tests found it was 30 times more potent than the same amount of cigarette smoke.

The latest research now shows that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) – the main toxins in wood and cigarette smoke – are associated with genetic damage in babies. Measured wintertime concentrations in Armidale, NSW, were 4 times higher than the level in a New York study linked to a 5 point reduction in IQ when children started school. Burning 1 kg of wood in a typical new Australian-standard compliant woodheater creates more health-hazardous PAH than smoking 16,000 cigarettes. Burning 4 tonnes per year produces more hazardous PAH than in the smoke from 64 million cigarettes.

When residents of Christchurch realised what woodsmoke was doing to their health, they started to change. The Clean Heat program replaced 1,973 woodheaters with insulation and reverse cycle airconditioners. This helped reduce pollution. The follow-up evaluation showed that the new, efficient home heating system increased electricity use by only 1% (perhaps they occasionally used supplementary electric heat in other rooms). So the increased electric bills were a tiny fraction of the cost of buying firewood – the families saved money as well as having warmer houses. As advised in the 50-scientist UN report, removing the wood heater is the best thing they could have done to reduce their contribution to climate change – a win, win, win situation!

Barnaby suggests that Forestry lit their burns when the wind was blowing away from Geeveston. Surely such manipulations would show up in the readings from BLANKET stations. Has anyone checked this? How many BLANKET monitoring sites have nearly 100 exceedences of the PM2.5 standard over a 20 month period because of burn-offs?

Geeveston – with just 277 houses – exceeded the PM2.5 standard on 99 occasions, compared to 1 exceedence at nearby Grove. Even without forestry burns, Geeveston – with just 277 houses - has very unhealthy air!

Armidale Dumaresq council no longer subsidises SmartBurns, after advice from the trial researcher that it did little to reduce pollution. The best solution, as in Christchurch, is to look for better and affordable ways of heating homes, e.g. improved insulation, efficient electric systems and possibly wood pellet heaters. With new reverse cycle electric systems (tested at outdoor temperatures of 2 centigrade) delivering 6 times as much heat to the living area as they use in electricity, they are a lot cheaper than buying firewood. Purchase and installation costs are also comparable with a wood heater.

Is the community is being conned by people who make money from promoting wood heating? How many people in Tassie would want their kids to start with a 5-point reduction IQ because they were exposed to PAH from woodsmoke? How many would want to risk their kids getting bronchiolitis, or middle ear infections? How many would want to risk a heart attack or stroke at 65, when they might otherwise have had a long, healthy retirement? Nobody wants the death of an industry, just understanding that the average woodheater in Tassie (including brand new ones) emits more health-hazardous PM2.5 pollution per year than 300 passenger cars.

If you want the ambience of a wood heater, get a gas-log one to use on special occasions as a supplement to the more affordable, reverse cycle system. But also, rather than create huge amounts of toxic pollution, please follow the recommendations of the Australian Lung Foundation, the American Lung Association, and the 50 scientists from the UN Environment Program and World Meteorological Association and avoid using woodheaters.

Enjoy better health and do you bit to help avoid catastrophic climate change by getting rid of that polluting device that emits methane, black carbon and ozone-precursors causes more global warming than any other form of home heating.

Posted by Dr Dorothy L Robinson on 28/08/11 at 11:42 AM

The fact is wood heaters are blamed when they are not even being used.
Didn’t Mr. Blanks say Forestry extended their burn season? There is your answer.

And on another point Gunns know that if they start operating their pulp mill they will push our current air quality readings over the ‘limits’. Forestry will be providing feed stock to the boiler so they have a vested interest to get rid of the wood heaters so they can have a monopoly on our Tamar valley air quality.
Don’t think for one minute Forestry have a vested interest in your health or mine…read what they said down the bottom at http://www.cleanairtas.com/about.htm

Dorothy#22:
People are installing wood heaters here in Tas because power prices and most other prices have risen so much. This is sad when we ran the heater buy-back program to get rid of them, but sick people need to look after their health and well being and to be warm. Mould is the last thing susceptible people need to be exposed to.

You say to “... avoid using wood heaters”
Forestry have extended their burn season. Now this would make you as a doctor shudder i am sure. The question is, how do we avoid forestry smoke?
Come down here and live and you will see you can’t unless it is stopped at the source.
Most of the wood heater smoke going through the air monitor occurred at the Huon whist people were indoors.
Most of the forestry smoke occurred whilst people (children especially) would have been outdoors exposed to it.
Big difference.

Posted by Clive Stott on 28/08/11 at 09:30 PM

Barnaby suggests that Forestry lit their burns when the wind was blowing away from Geeveston. Surely such manipulations would show up in the readings from BLANKET stations.

In the Launceston area forestry practice is to only burn when the wind is away from the inhabited areas. This is commendable, but does not ameliorate the fact that forestry burns release far more particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere than all the the woodheaters put together. On published figures, Forestry burns 7.2 million tonnes of carbon per year. That is equal to 14.4 tonnes for every single person in Tasmania.

For years now, we have been endlessly told by Forestry that they are ‘carbon neutral’ and all the CO2 generated by them is instantly absorbed by all the new trees they are planting. However, this same absorbtion rate does not seem to apply to the much lesser woodstove smoke. Perhaps it was only the OLD trees that absorbed domestic smoke?

As a side issue, I noticed in Gunns latest accounts that they have had to write down the yeilds from their plantations, so either they are not absorbing as much as they had hoped, which means they are not carbon neutral, or they need MORE smoke? So even the small contribution from domestic woodheaters hasn’t seemed to help them out much? Now they want a wood-fired power station as well, burning ‘forest waste’, so where is all this added CO2 going to go?

Think about it - you could be getting warmer. Soon you may not even need a heater.

Somewhere, something just doesn’t add up, but of course, it ain’t Forestry’s fault - their scientists have proved that!

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 29/08/11 at 12:13 AM

#23 smoke from woodheaters
Spot on, for the same reason I have a wood heater too, pleased you mentioned it Mike.
#21 Dr.Robinson thank you for the comprehensive info. you have provided.
I am interested about Tasmania, not Christchurch NZ, Launceston statistics may have been more helpful!
Geeveston was previously known as Lightwood Bottom an area I know well having previously lived and worked in the Huon from the late 60’s till early 70’s.
Geeveston is a frost hollow hence the high readings from wood heaters. You know that the Huon folk mainly use local wet forest Stringy Bark which by the nature of the wood gives off strong smoke when compared to Peppermint a Dry forest species preferred for its high burning qualities.
I am afraid that reverse cycle heating, a form of air conditioning is not favoured in our household, it is stuffy heat, bad for our health, dry throats hence prone to sniffles and colds, and useless for warmth when the weather gets bitterly cold.
We run our medium size wood heater on very dry peppermint firewood at a comfortable temp. turn it down over night and can depend on it then the weather turns really cold for early morning warmth and again in the evenings.
You try telling the rural folk down in the dank cold Huon that they cant have wood heaters!
I am only 65 yet, non smoker, very few health issues and hope to manage my own wood supply over the next 20 years for fitness and satisfaction for my self preservation.
“Unfortunately”? I am not fanatical about health just plenty of exercise, good diet and very rarely expose myself to chemicals and lazing around being idle.
Forestry burns are tied up with employment and a whole range of pre existing sawlog, peeler log and pulpwood supply arrangements within the forestry sector.
Look out for more of and larger wild fires if Forestry loses its grip on State land management.
Modern society tends to react to each and every move if forestry activity were a criminal act!
On the whole Tasmania has clean air and plenty of it, no polluting industries.
Apart from those persons who are unfortunate enough to have medical conditions for which I am sorry for there is a strong tendency today many fail to make healty life choices get enough exercise, lack healthy diet, cannot find employment and basically end up depressed, enduring hopelessness and end up being more prone to “new age” illness.
We dont live in a soft and cuddly world mind you I would not swap Tasmania for the mainland.

Dioxin, a chemical contaminant in Agent Orange, caused many health problems in the Vietnam War. Known human carcinogens in woodsmoke include formaldehyde & benzene. Another chemical, acrolein, suppresses the immune system & is linked to MS.

It’s a real worry that, when mice were exposed to either woodsmoke, oil furnace fumes, or clean air for 6 hours, then a flu bug, only 5% of those exposed to clean air or oil fumes got sick and died, but 21% of those exposed to woodsmoke were dead 2 weeks later. People concerned about chemical exposure should keep well away from woodsmoke!

Particles in woodsmoke are so small they behave like gases. The only way to keep them out of houses is to make them airtight, but then we’d die from lack of oxygen.

Living with a 1-pack per day smoke increases PM2.5 exposure by 30 ug/m3. Homes in Launceston had higher PM2.5 over the entire winter from woodsmoke entering from outside, than if a 1-pack per day smoker lived in the house.

Canadian researchers studied healthy volunteers, with & without High Efficiency Particle Air filters operating in their homes. Even in healthy volunteers, living in an area with no exceedences of the PM2.5 standard (i.e. much less woodsmoke than in Geeveston), the particle pollution caused real & significant health damage.

A study in Armidale, NSW, compared woodsmoke levels with visits to GPs for respiratory complaints. More than 750 visits per year were linked to woodsmoke pollution. Several people living below the inversion layer suffered respiratory and sinus problems every winter until they moved out.

It’s really sad that people inflict these problems on themselves & their neighbours because they don’t believe the advice of the ALF and the ALA: woodsmoke is so toxic that people should not use it when less polluting heating is available.

Robin suggested a possible solution: “consider benefit of introducing of wood burning electricity generation units to consume the bulk of forest slash.” In Europe, the possibility of combined heat and power systems might also be examined.

With a 50-scientist expert report from the UN recommending curtailment of agricultural burns & phasing out woodheaters in developed countries to reduce global warming, local power generation would could reduce both PM2.5 emissions & global warming, create jobs, & provide affordable home heating. I’d guess that the cost per unit of avoided emissions would be much lower than most other possible ways of reducing global warming.

But it can’t happen unless people realise that exceeding the PM2.5 standard 99 times in 20 months makes Geeveston a very unhealthy place to live. Cigarette smokers justify their habit by because of a chain-smoking acquaintance who lived to a ripe old age. Wintertime measurements in Launceston showed similar PM2.5 levels inside houses to those from living with a 1-pack per day smoker, though of course woodsmoke is much more harmful to health than cigarette smoke.

By admitting that the air is very unhealthy in winter, you can start to make a case for alternatives such as local wood-fired power generation – using a valuable resource instead of just setting it on fire – creating affordable heating and power and avoiding exposure during winter to a valley filled with toxic smoke trapped by an inversion layer.

Only by looking at the results of studies (e.g. Christchurch where the smokiest areas had 68% more respiratory deaths than the cleanest) can people start to understand the damage that smoke from domestic woodheaters does to our health. Accept the expert advice & embrace the win-win-win solution that could lead to more jobs and cleaner, affordable heating.

Posted by Dr Dorothy L Robinson on 02/09/11 at 09:53 AM

Yeah, leave it to Greenies and turn the forests into tinderboxes so that we can all enjoy the huge forest fires like in the last decade. Never mind the little collateral damage of property destruction, stock losses and the occasional incinerated person. After all, there are too mnany people for sustainable third world economy, aren’t they?

Posted by seenitall on 02/09/11 at 12:23 PM

#26. Well put Robin, may you enjoy many more years on the end of the blockbuster. While people can still access their wood for free or close to free, then no other heating source has any chance. Statistics and feel good urban heating systems mean zip if the hip pocket is paramount.

Worst thing I ever did was migrate from wood heating to heat pump with LPG in between, both warmthwise and economically.